Case1Tech: Changing Claim Construction Position on Appeal
Patent – Patently-O 2025-10-12
Summary:
by Dennis Crouch
Quick post in a trio of non-precedential decisions. Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires, Nos. 23-2305, 23-2294, 23-2335 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2025) (all nonprecedential).
The basic holding: A party may not alter the scope of the claim construction positions it took before the Board. Claims constructions not presented to the lower tribunal (here the PTAB) will not be considered on appeal in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Samsung had petitioned for IPR of ST Case1Tech’s always-on recording patents, arguing that the claimed “audio forensics analysis system” encompassed speech-to-text functionality disclosed in the prior art. Before the Board, Case1Tech argued that “analysis” means “calculation of noise dosage” using a specific measurement used for hearing protection. After losing at the Board, Case1Tech altered its position on appeal, arguing that audio forensics analysis merely “includes” noise dosage calculation and encompasses any “analysis that uses all captured acoustic data.” I think that their idea on appeal is that this broader construction would be more defensible, while still being narrow enough to avoid the prior art speech-to-text analysis system.
The appellate panel rejected this maneuver based upon forfeiture. Case1Tech told the Board that audio forensics analysis “is the calculation of noise dosage,” it could not later argue on appeal that such analysis merely “includes” noise dosage calculation.